I have carried a rifle in my pickup for longer than I can remember. The purpose of carrying one was to shoot coyotes, prarie dogs, jack rabbits, and feral hogs. A long rifle, such as a .22-250, .243 etc. was hard to manuever in a pick-up cab. So, I bought a Ruger Mini-14. It worked real well for a long time, but the dirt and rust from carrying in my pickup, was a constant cleaning job. I sold it, and bought my first AR, which was a Hesse. These take alot of abuse. The side door kept alot of dirt out of the bolt. Unfortunately, it got stolen. Now I have a Colt. My point here is to show some of the people on here that most of these rifles are used for sporting purposes. I don't have this gun to storm some beach somewhere, or to use in town at the movies, or school, or take out some shoppers at the mall. I'm not going to assault anyone or anything. I use it for sporting purposes, because I like to shoot. Some people need to use common sense, and see there are other uses for the so-called assault guns. End of rambling.

The people who want our guns aren't interested in solutions. They have an agenda, and we must get past the place of believing we can have a rational conversation or debate with them. They want to disarm us, end of conversation. They will lie and deceive and twist and distort everything and anything to achieve that goal. Their zeal is a religious one, and their religious goal, to create a utopian world with them in total control of everything, is prosecuted with the belief that ANYTHING they do in furtherance of that goal is justified, because they are doing a good that lower forms of life like us cannot see, understand or appreciate.

Stop thinking that people like Diane Feinstein are merely deluded do gooders. They know exactly what they are doing, and why.

Let me tell you a story about Dianna baby. Yesterday, I went to see my foot doctor, who is an ATA member etc. He told me he was in Podiatry School in San Francisco, when Dianne was in control there. She had banned all of this stuff. Anyway, this school was in a bad area. One professor got beat up, two girl students were raped, etc, etc. One day Dianne baby has a news conference to talk about how crime had gone down in S.F. under her regime etc. After the conference, she stumbled off the podium, and her purse fell to the ground, with her pistol falling out of it. Well, it is OK for her to carry a gun, but no one else. The old double standard.

A bb gun in NJ that can contain more than 15 rounds in it's magazine technically constitutes an assault weapon. And no I am not kidding as bb and pellet guns are considered firearms and you do need a pstol permit in NJ to get a BB or pellet pistol. Welcome to the USSA comrades.

"Assault rifle" is defined as a select-fire (capable of semi-auto AND full-auto) chambered for an intermediate cartridge.

This means it is more powerful than a handgun cartridge, but is less powerful than a standard military rifle cartridge, meaning less powerful than the 30-06, the 8mm Mauser, the .303 Enfield or the Russian 7.62x54R.

The much maligned AR15 as sold on the civilian market lacks full auto fire, therefore it fails to meet the definition of an assault rifle.

The Ruger 10-22, which is now classified as an assault weapon if you add a large magazine or thread the barrel, fires a .22 rimfire cartridge. Therefore it fails to meet the definition of an assault rifle.

The Mossberg 590, now classified as an assault weapon, is a shotgun, and fails to meet the definition of an assault rifle.

The Browning Buckmark pistol, when the barrel is threaded, is now classified as an assault weapon, and being a handgun and chambered in .22 rimfire it is clearly not an assault rifle.

See how easy it is to change definitions when you make up political terminology?

Don't let all this "sporting" crap cloud the issue.If you want an assault weapon because it is an assault weapon that is good enough.They wouldn't know a sporting arm from their elbow.They don't want you to have an assault weapon because it gives you power.They don't want that.Don't get caught up in the rhetoric.Assault weapons work great for the job they were intended.There is no reason a law abiding citizen should be denied one if he wants one.They make the "sporting" arguement to skirt the real issue which is you having power against them.

If you guys are all such sportsmen, why is there no whining about the Federal law restricting magazine capacities to three shots for migratory birds. Is it because you have become accustomed
to the law and don't even think about it anymore?

Would it be wrong for our federal government to offer as much protection to our children as they do our coots?

Or is it because Coots are black that you don't care? (Joking of course)

Gun Control Act of 1968 is believed to be modeled after
Germany's_Waffengesetz" [Law on Weapons] of March 18, 1938 (published
in_Reichgesetzblatt_1938, Teil [Part] I, pp. 265-276), because the
Act's author, late U.S. Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT), had in his
possession a copy of the Nazi Weapons Law around the time he was
drafting the 1968 Gun Control Act. He later requested an English
translation of the German text, a Xerox copy of which_he supplied"
to the Library of Congress, although the Library had copies of its
own which he could have requested to be translated. This was an effort
on his part to fend off criticism that his legislation closely resembled
the law passed under the Third Reich. Senator Dodd didn't need the
translation himself, since he could speak German, and had been a
prosecutor at Nurnberg during the War Crimes Trials of 1945-46, so
he was familiar with German law. The parallels between the two laws
"are_striking (including for the first time the introduction into
American firearms law of the European concept of "sporting purpose,"
a direct translation of "Sport-zwecke" in the 1938 statute), and there
was no apparent reason for Senator Dodd to own a copy of the Nazi
Waffengesetz, or any other Nazi law which did not figure in the
evidence at Nurnberg. Yet own it he did. For more information about
this incident, and a line-by-line comparison of the two laws, see
the book ""Gun Control" Gateway to Tyranny,"by Jay Simkin and Aaron
Zelman, published by JPFO (see above), as well as_Federal Firearms
Legislation - Hearings Before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile
Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary,"United States Senate,
90th Congress, second session, June 26-28 and July 8-10, 1968;
SuDoc# Y4.J89/2:F51/3 , pp.489-496.

AS mentioned on another thread I have a bull barreled ar for chucks and a Rem R25 308 that I've used for Whitetail (Not that I've gotten a shot with it yet but its been in the field **Note- Out of State hunting trips only **NJ doesn't allow rifles for such things)

But Cuomo says you don't hunt with them. I and a poop load of people would beg to differ. And as someone else mentioned mine aren't assault weapons they are hunting and defense guns. Obama, Bloomberg and Cuomo don't have to worry about home defense and the 2nd Amendment though as they all are well protected. We peons and surfs don't deserve the same rights as them.

Also, they are touting that law enforcement is behind them. That's bullshit! Maybe city admis are but the guys I work with or the vast majority of local cops and this is NJ!

It's been proven right here in the USA that gun bans do the exact opposite of what they are intended to do: reduce violent crime. So what is going on here? It's politics at it's best, trying to look good and being ineffective while doing it. By the way, coots are nasty eating. We've got a ton of them around here. Bill